By Electronic Submission
|
|
- Oswald Riley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Chair: Ms. Barbara A. Boigegrain Secretary/Treasurer: Ms. Sarah S. Hirsen, Esquire General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of The United Methodist Church 1901 Chestnut Avenue Glenview, Illinois (847) Counsel: K&L Gates LLP 1601 K Street NW Washington D.C Tel (202) Fax (202) Chair Emeritus: Mr. John G. Kapanke Members: Mr. Louis Barbarin * American Baptist Churches Mr. J. Paul Bell Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church Ms. Barbara A. Boigegrain * United Methodist Church Mr. John H. Bolt Christian Reformed Church in North America Rev. Kenneth Bradsell Reformed Church in America Mr. David J. Brown Community of Christ Mr. Gary D. Campbell Presbyterian Church in America Mr. Elford H. Clark International Church of the Foursquare Gospel Mr. Michael A. Downs * United Church of Christ Mr. Nevin Dulabaum Church of the Brethren Dr. Craig A. Dunn Wesleyan Church Mr. James P. Hamlett * Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Dr. O. S. Hawkins * Southern Baptist Convention Mr. Gerald B. Hindy Assemblies of God Mr. Jeffrey A. Jenness Board of Pensions of the Church of God Rev. Dr. Jeffrey J. Jeremiah Evangelical Presbyterian Church Mr. Del L. Johnson General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists Mr. Marlo J. Kauffman Mennonite Church Mr. Robert M. Koppel * Reform Pension Board Mr. Ray Lewis National Association of Free Will Baptists Dr. Dean A. Lundgren Evangelical Covenant Church Rev. Ross I. Morrison Evangelical Free Church of America Rev. Richard Nugent Unitarian Universalist Association Mr. Joshua Peterman Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod Mr. John M. Preis * Young Men s Christian Association Br. Michael F. Quirk, FSC * Christian Brothers Services Mr. Arthur D. Rhodes Church of God Benefits Board Mr. Larry Roberts Free Methodist Church of North America Mr. James F. Sanft * Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Mr. Stephen Schultz Baptist General Conference Converge Worldwide Mr. Mitchell J. Smilowitz Joint Retirement Board for Conservative Judaism Mr. Frank Spencer* Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Board of Pensions Mr. Ray D. Stites Christian Churches Pension Plan Rev. Jeffrey Thiemann * Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Mr. James P. Thomas, CPA Churches of God, General Conference Rev. Bruce Verkruyse, Jr. Association of Unity Churches International Rev. Don L. Walter Church of the Nazarene Ms. Mary Kate Wold* Episcopal Church * Steering Committee Members October 27, 2014 By Electronic Submission Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance Employee Benefits Security Administration Room N 5653 U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue NW. Washington, DC Attention: Preventive Services CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG ) Courier s Desk Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue NW. Washington, DC Re: Interim Final Regulations Dear Sir or Madam: The Church Alliance submits this comment in response to the interim final regulations ( IFRs ) issued jointly by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (together, the Departments ) and published at 79 Fed. Reg (Aug. 27, 2014). 1 The Church Alliance has commented three times previously on the topic of the preventive services mandate (the Mandate ) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA): on September 28, 2011, on the interim final rules published at 76 Fed. Reg (Aug. 3, 2011); on June 21, 2012, on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking published at 77 Fed. Reg (Mar. 21, 2012); and on April 8, 2013 on the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 78 Fed. Reg (Feb. 6, 2013). 1 We include within the IFR the proposed regulations under section 9815 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code ) published by the IRS at 79 Fed. Reg (Aug. 27, 2014).
2 Copies of these earlier comments are available at (last visited Oct. 9, 2014). Executive Summary The Church Alliance recognizes the Departments effort to respond to the needs of the community of eligible organizations through the addition of a second means of accommodating religious organizations with a religious objection to providing some or all contraceptives required by the Mandate. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Church Alliance respectfully submits that the IFRs fail to protect the religious rights of religious organizations that object to providing some or all contraceptives through their employee benefit plans established for their employees and their dependents (hereinafter, eligible organizations ). The IFRs continue the Departments pattern of attempting to create an accommodation under the Mandate for eligible organizations. Nonetheless, this latest version of the accommodation still falls short of the needs of eligible organizations by causing them to act contrary to their beliefs. The Government candidly admits that its revised accommodation merely offers eligible organizations a new alternative submitting a notice to HHS rather than to their insurance company or third-party administrator (TPA) that ultimately has the same effect as the original accommodation. 2 Eligible organizations must still maintain a contractual relationship with a third party authorized to deliver the mandated coverage to their plan beneficiaries, and eligible organizations must still submit a document that facilitates the delivery of such coverage which they believe violates their religious convictions. Thus, the regulations as revised by the IFRs continue to fall short of accommodating eligible organizations. Moreover, they continue to violate the Establishment Clause, artificially dividing religious organizations into two separate spheres. I. BACKGROUND ON THE CHURCH ALLIANCE The Church Alliance is an organization composed of the chief executives of thirty-eight church benefit boards, covering mainline and evangelical Protestant denominations, two branches of Judaism, and Catholic schools and institutions. The Church Alliance members, listed on the left of this letterhead, provide employee benefit plans, including in many cases, medical coverage to approximately one million participants (clergy and lay workers) serving over 155,000 churches, synagogues and affiliated organizations. These medical programs are defined as church plans under section 3(33) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( ERISA ) and Code section 414(e). All of the members of the Church Alliance share the common view that a church or an employer associated with a church should not have to face the choice of violating its religious tenets and beliefs or violating the law in order to maintain a health care plan for its workers. This is true even though most of the health care plans associated with the members of the Church Alliance do not impose any specific restrictions on contraceptive coverage. A few programs, reflecting the religious beliefs of the churches with which they are associated, exclude coverage for all contraceptives. Other programs whose associated churches do not object to contraception but hold fundamental convictions against abortion, exclude coverage for contraceptives that are or could be abortifacients, such as the so-called morningafter pills or emergency contraceptives. 2 CCIIO, Fact Sheet: Women s Preventive Services Coverage, FAQs/womens-preven html (last visited Oct. 12, 2014).
3 II. REVISED ACCOMMODATION FOR ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS The IFRs provide that in lieu of executing and delivering a Form 700 to the insurer or TPA for its plan, an eligible organization will be deemed to comply with the Mandate if it notifies HHS in writing of the organization s objection. The IFRs provide that the notice must include the following information: the name of the eligible organization; the basis on which the eligible organization qualifies for an accommodation; the eligible organization s objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs to coverage of some or all contraceptives (including an identification of the subset of contraceptives to which coverage the eligible organization objects, if applicable); The plan name and type (i.e., whether it is a student health insurance plan or a church plan within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33)); and The name and contact information for the eligible organization s insurer and/or TPA. If there is any change in the information required to be included in the notice, the eligible organization must provide the updated information to HHS. Upon receipt of this notice and based upon it, the Government will contact the eligible organization s insurer or TPA to inform it of its obligation to provide or arrange payments for contraceptives to plan enrollees. A. The Application of the Mandate, as Revised by the IFRs, Continues to Violate RFRA The new notification alternative under the IFRs continues to violate RFRA as applied to eligible organizations, because it requires them to facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage to which they have a religious objection. The intent of the IFRs is the same as the old rule preserving participants and beneficiaries access to coverage for the full range of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- approved contraceptives. Id. And it has the same effect as the old rule. Some may argue that the augmented compliance system should be satisfactory to eligible organizations because the addition of a middle-man makes the complicity more attenuated in the Government s eyes. But Hobby Lobby forecloses that argument entirely. The relevant question is only whether an eligible organization sincerely believes it is forbidden from participating in the Government s system to promote and facilitate contraceptive access. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at The IFRs continue to cause eligible organizations to violate their religious beliefs The effect under the IFRs is the same as under the old rule. Regardless of whether the eligible organization self-certifies in accordance with the July 2013 final rules [using Form 700], or provides notice to HHS in accordance with the August 2014 IFRs, the obligations of insurers regarding providing or arranging separate payments for contraceptives services are the same. See CCIIO Fact Sheet, supra n.2. Thus, any eligible organization will remain substantially involved in the provision of contraceptives with either form of accommodation, to wit: an eligible organization will maintain its contract with the TPA or insurer that may provide objectionable coverage;
4 an eligible organization must formally notify its TPA or insurer or provide the TPA or insurer name and contact information to HHS; an eligible organization must update any information provided to HHS; and in the case of a self-insured plan being administered by a TPA, if the insurance company providing the contraceptive services is not affiliated with the TPA, the insurer will not have any information on participants, thus requiring the TPA to share personal information on plan participants provided by the eligible organization, without the consent of the organization. Under either accommodation, an eligible organization will continue to serve as a gatekeeper, providing notice so that its TPA or insurer can provide objectionable products and services. Importantly, employees of an eligible organization relying on either accommodation will consider the contraception coverage provided by the organization s insurer or TPA to be provided under the organization s plan for the following reasons: The obligation to provide contraception coverage is coterminous with the period a participant or beneficiary remains covered in the eligible organization s health plan. No individual is entitled to independent coverage before he or she becomes a plan participant, and any separate coverage will immediately cease when the employee s participation in the employer s plan terminates. 3 When an eligible organization s plan changes its insurer or TPA, the former insurer s or TPA s independent obligation to provide contraceptives to plan participants automatically terminates. If an insurer requires its insurance policy plan participants to use network providers, it may also impose the very same network requirement on the access to contraceptive services provided by the insurer. 4 The ACA consumer protections required to be provided by insurers under the independent arrangement are identical to those required to be provided under an insurance policy. 5 The independent contraceptive coverage will be provided on the same no cost basis (i.e., no copayment, coinsurance or deductible) as if the coverage were offered directly under the organization s plan. 6 For certain purposes, HHS will also treat an insurer providing independent contraceptive coverage as if the insurer provided such coverage under the policy issued to the plan. For example, HHS has indicated that it intends to clarify in future guidance that an issuer of group health insurance coverage that makes 3 See, e.g., 45 C.F.R (c)(2)(B) where the obligation imposed on an insurer with respect to plan participants and beneficiaries continues so long as they remain enrolled in the plan Fed. Reg. at See, e.g., 45 C.F.R (c)(2)(B)(ii) and preamble at 78 Fed. Reg. at , which states: Although these payments for contraceptive services are not benefits under a health insurance policy, to fulfill an issuer s responsibilities under section 2713 of the PHS Act and the companion provisions of ERISA and the Code and consistent with the proposed regulations, an issuer must make them available in a way that meets minimum standards for consumer protection, which would ordinarily accompany coverage of recommended preventive health services without cost sharing under section 2713 of the PHS Act and the companion provisions of ERISA and the Code. Thus, issuers, in order to satisfy their regulatory obligations under these final regulations, must make these payments for contraceptive services in a manner consistent with the requirements under the following provisions of the PHS Act and the companion provisions of ERISA and the Code (and their implementing regulations): PHS Act sections 2706 (non-discrimination in health care), 2709 (coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials), 2711 (no lifetime or annual limits), 2713 (coverage of preventive health services), 2719 (appeals process), and 2719A (patient protections), as incorporated by reference into ERISA section 715 and Code section C.F.R (c)(2)(B)(ii).
5 payments for contraceptive services under the accommodation procedure may treat those payments as an adjustment to claims costs for purposes of medical loss ratio and risk corridor program calculations. 78 Fed. Reg. at (July 2, 2013). For these reasons, the Mandate continues to impose a substantial burden on eligible organizations that do not want to violate their religious beliefs. The Departments have simply given the eligible organizations an alternative way of doing what their faith forbids them to do: converting their conscience-compliant health plan into a plan that violates their conscience. 2. The Mandate continues to expose eligible organizations to substantial penalties If an eligible organization, large or small, sponsors a medical plan for its employees, but the plan does not provide required contraception coverage, Code section 4980D will impose an excise tax equal to $100/day for each covered individual denied such coverage. As with the employees in Hobby Lobby, because the contraceptive mandate forces [the eligible organizations] to pay an enormous sum of money if they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs. 134 S. Ct. at If an eligible organization with an average of 50 or more full-time employees discontinues its plan to avoid violating its religious tenets and beliefs, it will be subject to a penalty under Code section 4980H of $2,000/year for each full-time employee if any employee obtains subsidized coverage through one of the exchanges established under the ACA. Hobby Lobby rejected the argument that the option of dropping insurance coverage eliminates the substantial burden that the HHS mandate imposes. 134 S. Ct. at The Mandate continues to fail to satisfy the strict scrutiny requirement a. The IFRs do not establish a compelling interest requiring eligible organizations to provide contraceptive coverage The Government has identified its compelling interests in imposing the Mandate as public health and gender equality. 134 S. Ct. at But the Court in Hobby Lobby rejected those interests as being couched in very broad terms, whereas RFRA requires a more focused inquiry that loo[ks] beyond broadly formulated interests. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at Indeed, [b]y stating the public interests so generally, the Government guarantee[d] that the mandate will flunk the test. Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 686 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 134 Sup. Ct (2014). The Government cannot claim a compelling interest because, as of the end of 2013, its regulations exempted health plans covering 90 million employees through, among other things, grandfathering provisions. Korte, 735 F.3d at 686; Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 941 F. Supp. 2d 672, 684 & n.12 (W.D. Pa. 2013). Simply put, the interest here cannot be compelling because the [Mandate] presently does not apply to tens of millions of people. Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1143; Korte, 735 F.3d at 686. b. Less restrictive alternatives are available to provide contraceptives As every court to consider the question has held, [t]here are many ways to promote public health and gender equality, almost all of them less burdensome on religious liberty than forcing eligible organizations to participate in the delivery of free contraception in violation of their beliefs. Korte, 735 F.3d at 686. Most obviously, as the Supreme Court explained in Hobby Lobby, [t]he most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the... contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers religious objections. 134 S. Ct. at 2780.
6 There are any number of ways the Government could provide free contraceptive coverage without using eligible organizations plans as a conduit. It could provide the contraceptives services or insurance coverage directly to eligible organizations employees, or work with third parties be it insurers, health care providers, drug manufactures, or nonprofits to do so without requiring [eligible organizations ] active participation. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. v. Sebelius, 987 F. Supp. 2d 232, (E.D.N.Y. 2013). More specifically, it could: provide tax incentives to consumers or producers of contraceptive products, Id.; give tax incentives to contraception suppliers to provide these medications and services at no cost to consumers. Korte, 735 F.3d at 686; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 987 F. Supp. 2d 232 at (same); modify the eligibility requirements for existing federal programs that provide health care subsidies on a massive scale, such as the Title X family planning program and the Medicaid program, or any number of other federal programs that already provide cost-free contraceptives to women; or permit employees of objecting eligible organizations to purchase fully subsidized coverage (either for contraceptives alone, or full plans) on the state and federal exchanges established under the ACA. There are no doubt other alternatives. While many eligible organizations may oppose many of these alternatives on policy grounds, all of them are less restrictive than the accommodation because they would deliver free contraception without forcing eligible organizations to violate their beliefs. Moreover, these alternatives are eminently workable because, as noted above, the Government s objectives could be achieved through minor regulatory tweaks to existing programs. 7 Even if a new regulatory program were necessary, the Government can hardly object, as it has shown its willingness to create (and repeatedly modify) such programs by, among other things, establishing the infrastructure by which TPAs are compensated under the accommodation. 45 C.F.R ; Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2781 (stating that nothing in RFRA suggests that a less restrictive means cannot involve the creation of a new program). The Government may attempt to claim that it is more convenient to commandeer eligible organizations plans, but administrative convenience cannot justify forcing eligible organizations to violate their beliefs, particularly where the Government submitted no evidence of any compelling need to do so. Finally, any suggestion that Hobby Lobby endorsed the accommodation as a viable least-restrictive means in all cases is mistaken. In fact, the Court expressly did not decide that question. 134 S. Ct. at 2782 & n.40; Id. at 2763 n.9. Instead, it simply found the accommodation less restrictive than requiring eligible organizations to pay for contraceptives in the context of a challenge brought by eligible organizations who did not object to the accommodation. Id. at 2782 & n.40; Id. at 2786 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ( [T]he eligible organizations have not criticized [the accommodation]. ). While the accommodation may effectively exempt[] eligible organizations that do not object to complying with the accommodation requirements, Id. at 2763 (majority op.), it does no such thing for entities like eligible organizations, who do object to complying with the accommodation requirements. Indeed, if there was ever any suggestion that Hobby Lobby blessed the accommodation, the Court dispelled that notion in Wheaton. Far from foreclosing challenges to the accommodation, the dissenters in Wheaton College v. 7 This remains true even if legislative action would be necessary. McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1458 (2014) (describing less restrictive alternatives requiring congressional action).
7 Burwell, 134 Sup. Ct (2014) confirmed that the order entitle[s] hundreds or thousands of other [nonprofits] to relief. 134 S. Ct. at 2814 n.6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). B. The Mandate Continues to Violate the First Amendment 1. Religious discrimination The IFRs continue the Government s discrimination among religious organizations by continuing the exemption for religious employers but not eligible organizations, a discrimination based on mere speculation about the religious beliefs of the eligible organizations and their employees and speculation cannot support a compelling interest. Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1130 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that, to pass strict scrutiny under Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982), the Government must provide evidence proving a challenged law s necessity). 2. Free speech a. Compelled speech As with the earlier accommodation, the IFRs require eligible organizations to speak in a manner and for a purpose that they cannot: to trigger payments for the use of contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices. The Government states that this compelled speech as reflected in either the Form EBSA 700 or the alternative notice to HHS under the IFRs provides the minimum information necessary for the Departments to implement their employer-based contraceptive distribution scheme. 79 Fed. Reg. at To this end, the IFRs compel eligible organizations for the first time, and in contrast to the innocuous content of the Supreme Court s Little Sisters and Wheaton College notices to specifically provide their TPA s identity and contact information. 8 Just as with Form 700, then, the eligible organizations do not wish to (and religiously cannot) speak in this way, since the purpose of the speech is to further the Government s scheme to deliver contraceptives via the eligible organizations plan. b. Restrictions on speech The IFRs removed the Government s regulatory gag rule as set forth in the final regulations. 79 Fed. Reg. at But the Departments still purport to restrict what eligible organizations may say to their TPAs. Id. ( [A]n attempt to prevent a third party administrator from fulfilling its independent legal obligations to provide contraceptive services remains generally unlawful and prohibited under other state and federal laws. ). The new rules, then, still embrace the position repeatedly stated by the Government that eligible organizations cannot instruct their TPAs not to provide objectionable services for their plan participants. This restriction is particularly important to eligible organizations with self-insured non-erisa plans. Although the Government concedes it has no authority to regulate such plans, 9 it nevertheless seeks to reform those plans to allow their TPAs to voluntarily provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services. 10 Any attempt by eligible organizations to prevent the offer of such objectionable services appears to be prohibited by the Departments. The Government cannot prohibit such eligible 8 At the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby, the Government claimed that what Form 700 accomplishes in the church-plan context is merely a regularized, orderly means for the Government to identify objectors. Brief of Respondents at 33, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, No. 13A691, 2014 WL (U.S. Jan. 3, 2014). But if Form 700 merely identifies objectors, and if the new notice to HHS is merely an alternative that has the same effect as the Form 700, why does the new notice to HHS require identifying TPAs and providing their contact information? 9 See Section II.C, infra, at page Fed. Reg. at n.8.
8 organizations from dissuading their TPAs from doing so, for such a prohibition restricts the organizations free speech rights. C. The IFRs Fail to Exclude Self-Insured Non-ERISA Church Plans The Departments acknowledge in a footnote in the preamble to the IFRs that [c]hurch plans are exempt from ERISA and that they cannot use ERISA regulations to turn church plan TPAs into plan administrators. 79 Fed. Reg. at n And they say that [the Department of Labor] will send out notifications to TPAs [w]hen an eligible organization that establishes a self-insured plan subject to ERISA turns in a notice. 79 Fed. Reg. at (emphasis added). But the interim final regulations themselves state in absolute terms the Government s obligation to notify the TPAs, and the TPA s obligation to provide for contraceptives. 12 And, the Government continues to hold out the carrot of federal reimbursement for TPAs for plans of eligible organizations that voluntarily provide contraceptive services in conjunction with the plans. 79 Fed. Reg. at n.8. Thus, whatever the mechanism, the Government appears to remain intent on causing the conscience-compliant benefit plans of eligible organizations to provide contraceptives. D. The IFRs Lack Statutory Authority 1. Insured plans Section 2792 of the PHSA (42 U.S.C. 300gg-92) authorizes the issuance of regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this subchapter [currently, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-1 to 300gg-95]. ) Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13) provides that a health insurance issuer offering group or individual insurance coverage shall provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for certain preventive services that include contraceptive services. Section 2713 requires the coverage for contraceptive services to be part of the underlying group coverage, not separate and apart from it. Stated otherwise, although the PHSA can require a group contract to include coverage for certain things, such as the coverages required by the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection Act of 1996 (P.L ) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-25); the Women s Health and Cancer Rights Act (part of P.L ) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4); and the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008 (P.L ) (42 U.S.C. 300gg-26), it cannot serve as the basis for the Departments requiring an insurer to do certain things outside of an insurance contract. Perhaps in light of the statutory limitation described above, the Departments carefully use the word payments in lieu of coverage throughout the IFRs. However, payments are just the end result of coverage. The IFRs make clear that these payments are the same thing as coverage under a plan. See, e.g., 78 Fed. Reg , (July 2, 2013) (rejecting initial proposal to require insurers to issue separate contraception-only policies); Id. at (requiring that payments be made in ways that meet minimum standards for consumer protection, which would ordinarily accompany coverage ); 45 C.F.R (c)(2)(B)(ii) (providing that an issuer must provide payments for contraceptive services in a manner that is consistent with the requirements for providing coverage under the ACA); 78 Fed. Reg. at (allowing insurer to limit provision of contraception through the plan s network of providers); and 29 C.F.R A(e) (providing that if employer s eligibility claim is later deemed false, issuer will not be liable for failure to provide coverage as long as it has been making the payments ). 11 See also Section II.D.3, infra, at page Fed. Reg. at (citing Code sections 7805 and 9833 as authority for the temporary and proposed regulations under Code section 9815). This is important because Treasury Regulations such as 26 C.F.R AT are fully binding on eligible organizations, including those whose plans are not covered by ERISA.
9 2. Self-insured plans covered by ERISA The previous version of the accommodation required an eligible organization that sponsored a selfinsured plan covered by ERISA to submit a self-certification to its TPA. The final regulations provided that the self-certification form provided by the eligible organization: shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated, shall be treated as a designation of the third party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under (a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds. 29 C.F.R (b); 78 Fed. Reg. at Now, the IFRs assert that once an eligible organization submits an alternative notification pursuant to the IFRs, the subsequent notice from the DOL to the TPA shall be an instrument under which the plan is operated and shall designate the TPA as the plan administrator for the provision of contraception services. 29 C.F.R (b); 79 Fed. Reg. at There is no authority under ERISA for the DOL to designate a TPA as a plan administrator or amend a plan. Absent narrow exceptions inapplicable here, a plan administrator under ERISA is the person specifically so designated by the terms of the instrument under which the plan is operated. 29 U.S.C. 1002(16)(A). ERISA sets forth specific requirements regarding the amendment of employee benefit plans. Plans must be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument, which must include a procedure for amending [the] plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan. 29 U.S.C. 1102(a)(1), (b)(3). Courts have repeatedly held that those procedures are the exclusive means to amend a plan instrument. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 79 (1995); Overby v. Nat l Ass n of Letter Carriers, 595 F.3d 1290, (D.C. Cir. 2010) ( [T]here must be amendment procedures in a plan, and those amendment procedures must be followed for the valid adoption of an amendment. ) Self-insured non-erisa church plans Section 9833 of the Code authorizes the issuance of regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The Secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the Secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this chapter. The referenced chapter is Chapter 100 of the Code Group Health Plan Requirements. Section 9815 of the Code, part of Chapter 100, states that the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) shall apply to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans, as if included in this subchapter. Part A of title XXVII of the PHSA (as amended by the ACA) includes section 2713, which provides that [a] group health plan shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for certain preventive services that include contraceptive services. As with insured plans, section 2713 requires the coverage of self-insured plans for contraceptive services to be part of the underlying group coverage, not separate and apart from it. In other words, although the PHSA can require 13 Confusing things further, the EBSA Form 700 as revised in August 2014 provides that the alternative notice to the Secretary of HHS is an instrument under which the plan is operated. 14 Having the Government appoint a TPA as a plan administrator raises a number of questions under ERISA. For example, who is responsible for monitoring the TPA as plan administrator? If the plan administrator breaches a fiduciary duty, is the eligible organization potentially responsible under ERISA section 405 (29 U.S.C. 1105) as a co-fiduciary?
10 a group health plan to include coverage for certain things, such as the coverages required by the Newborns and Mothers Health Protection Act of 1996 (P.L )(42 U.S.C. 300gg-25), it cannot serve as the basis for the Departments requiring a TPA to do certain things outside of the group health plan, nor can ERISA require a TPA to provide certain coverage or make certain payments for a selfinsured plan that is not covered by ERISA. As described earlier, 15 the IFRs require that the notice provided to HHS by an eligible organization must include the name and contact information for the eligible organization s TPA. The IFRs state that the DOL then will send a separate notification to each of the plan s third party administrators describing the obligations of the third party administrator under 29 CFR and this section and under A. 29 C.F.R AT(b)(1)(ii)(B). According to sections A and AT, if a TPA receives a self-certification from an eligible organization or a notification from the DOL, and agrees to enter into or remain in a contractual relationship with the eligible organization or its plan to provide administrative services for the plan, the third party administrator shall provide or arrange payments for contraceptive services. As with insured plans 16 the Departments carefully use the word payments in lieu of coverage. As stated earlier, 17 the IFRs make clear that payments are the same thing as coverage. However, these payments are outside of a group health plan, so they may not be mandated or enforced with respect to group health plans under the regulatory authority described in Code section E. The IFRs Fail to Provide Clarity as to the Timing of Notices When an eligible organization chooses to provide a notice to HHS, the deadline for the notice is unclear from the IFRs, which state that the plan complies for one or more plan years if the eligible organization provides a notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services So, must the notice be provided each year, prior to the beginning of the plan year? If so, how far in advance must it be provided? III. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS CONTINUES TO EXCLUDE BONA FIDE ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS The IFRs make no changes to the definition for religious employers in the final regulations published in July The regulations continue to exclude bona fide religious organizations because they continue to reference statutory exemptions set out in Code sections 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) that were crafted for another purpose specifically, to exempt churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches and the exclusively religious activities of a religious order from the annual Form 990 filing requirement under Code section For the reasons discussed in its prior comments, the Church Alliance again urges the Departments to extend the religious employer exemption, and suggests they extend it to all employers that maintain or participate in church plans, as defined in Code section 414(e). The Departments continuing struggle with an employer-by-employer approach highlights once again the advisability of a plan-based approach. As we noted in prior comments, focusing the exemption on benefit plans rather than employers avoids entanglement problems. In addition, a plan-based exemption recognizes that in many churches the plan is not at an individual employer level but may be at a local, state, regional or even national level. Depending on a church s polity as determined by its theological beliefs, some religious employers are required to participate in a multiple employer church plan while others may elect to do so. Finally, under the final regulations as revised by the IFRs there are now two different accommodation procedures for 15 See Section II, supra, at page See Section II.D.1, supra, at page Id.
11 eligible organizations. One involves the filing of an EBSA Form 700, while the other involves the filing of a notice with HHS. Both methods effectively amend the plan in which an eligible organization seeking an accommodation participates. For an eligible organization participating in a multiple employer church plan, this means that that the plan sponsor which may be a religious employer exempt from the Mandate will be involved in a program to deliver objectionable drugs and devices in violation of the plan sponsor s religious objections as the result of plan amendments beyond the plan sponsor s control. However, if the Departments are unwilling to expand the exemption as described above because they are concerned that such an exemption would be too broad, the Departments could draft the exemption more narrowly so that if the church plan is established or maintained by a religious employer, and substantially all of the employers in the church plan are either religious employers or eligible organizations (or substantially all of the participants are employees of religious organizations or eligible employers), all employers in the church plan would be treated as religious employers, exempt from the contraception coverage requirement. This approach would prevent the avoidance of the contraception coverage requirement by employers that are neither religious employers nor eligible organizations. At the same time, this approach would avoid the administrative challenges and possible governmental entanglement for the Departments or courts in determining whether religious organizations were religious enough to be categorized as religious employers or eligible organizations. In addition, this would allow one uniform set of benefits for plan participants and decrease the cost of plan administration for employers providing benefits under church plans. This approach would be narrower than an exemption based solely on Code section 414(e). It would result in some church plans being exempt (multiple employer church plans that only include employers that are closely tied to the church), while others, such as certain single employer church plans, would not be exempt unless the individual employer satisfies the religious employer definition. Applying the multiple employer church plan exemption in this manner would recognize the unique nature of multiple employer church plans, particularly the fact that such plans cover many houses of worship (often primarily covering clergy and employees at churches) but also cover some employers associated with the church that may not clearly be religious employers, but that clearly are eligible organizations. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, we believe that the application of the Mandate to eligible organizations violates the RFRA and the First Amendment. However, if the IFRs are finalized, we suggest that the final version of the regulations implementing the Mandate expand the types of religious organizations exempt from the Mandate to include any religious organization that objects to providing contraceptive coverage on the basis of religious beliefs; or at least any such religious organization that provides benefits through a church plan. If the Departments will not expand the exemption, the Church Alliance respectfully requests that the Departments at least adjust the alternative process for the accommodation in the following ways: Amend the IFRs to delete the requirement to provide third party administrator or health insurance issuer information in an eligible organization s notice to HHS; and Allowing the option for a multiple employer church plan to submit one notice to HHS on behalf of all eligible organizations that have adopted the plan. Allowing one form would be easier for HHS, and would avoid inadvertent paperwork lapses by small, unsophisticated eligible organizations.
12 Please contact the undersigned at if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Stephen H. Cooper Government Affairs Counselor, K&L Gates On Behalf of the Church Alliance
October 21, Dear Sir or Madam,
October 21, 2014 Submitted Electronically Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G 200 Independence Avenue SW. Washington, DC 20201 Re: Public Comments
More informationProposed Rules Regarding Closely-Held For-Profit Employers With Sincere Religious Objections to Compliance with the HHS Mandate File Code: CMS-9940-P
October 21, 2014 Submitted Electronically Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G 200 Independence Avenue SW. Washington, DC 20201 Re: Proposed Rules
More informationAGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/13/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-22064, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits
More informationPriests for Life v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Overview
Priests for Life v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services The HHS Mandate & Accommodation Overview Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, [a] group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group
More information[Billing Codes: P; P; P; ]
[Billing Codes: 4830-01-P; 4510-029-P; 4120-01-P; 6325-64] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 54 [TD-9690] RIN 1545-BM38 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration
More informationRound 2 on the Legal Challenges to Contraceptive Coverage: Are Nonprofits Substantially Burdened by the Accommodation?
Round 2 on the Legal Challenges to Contraceptive Coverage: Are Nonprofits Substantially Burdened by the Accommodation? The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, and 15-191 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
More informationAGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/22/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-17242, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue
More informationReligious Exemption to Women s Preventive Care Requirements
Preventive Services Announcements Religious Exemption to Women s Preventive Care Requirements HHS Employee Notice and Certification Form Attached On Feb. 10, 2012, the Departments of Health and Human Services
More informationHow Does Where You Work Affect Your Contraception Coverage?
Overview How Contraceptive Coverage Works Exemptions and Accommodations Round 1: Hobby Lobby v. Burwell Round 2: Zubik v. Burwell Who are the plaintiffs? What are the arguments on both sides? Why does
More informationchallenges Churches 1) Overview of Contraceptive Mandate 2) Current religious exceptions 3) Status of current religious freedom
Michael W. Durham, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 1) Overview of Contraceptive Mandate 2) Current religious exceptions 3) Status of current religious freedom challenges 4) Options for objecting organizations
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-775 In the Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Petitioners, v. CNS INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES, INC. AND HEARTLAND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, Respondents. On
More informationWith the calendar year coming to a close, plan sponsors and plan administrators
Interim Final Rules Update By Krista Maschinot With the calendar year coming to a close, plan sponsors and plan administrators had been breathing a sigh of relief that renewal season will go smoothly as
More informationComments on Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, CMS-9968-ANPRM
June 18, 2012 Secretary Kathleen Sebelius US Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Re: Comments on Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care
More informationHealth Care Reform: Legislative Brief Important Effective Dates for Employers and Health Plans
Health Care Reform: Legislative Brief Important Effective Dates for Employers and Health Plans On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the health care reform bill, or Affordable Care Act (ACA), into
More informationPPACA and Health Care Reform. A Chronological Guide to Changes and Provisions Affecting Employee Benefits Plans and HR Administration
PPACA and Health Care Reform A Chronological Guide to Changes and Provisions Affecting Employee Benefits Plans and HR Administration AS OF 8/27/2013 Provisions Organized by Effective Date The Affordable
More informationMay 7, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Hearing on Taxable Medical Devices (77 Fed. Reg. 6,028 [Feb. 7, 2012].
May 7, 2012 VIA COURIER AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Courier s Desk Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-113770-10) Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20224 RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
More informationThis document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/27/2014 and available online at CMS-9940-P 1
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/27/2014 and available online at CMS-9940-P 1 http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-20254, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
More informationState and Federal Contraceptive Coverage Requirements: Implications for Women and Employers
March 2018 Issue Brief State and Federal Contraceptive Coverage Requirements: Implications for Women and Employers Laurie Sobel, Alina Salganicoff, and Ivette Gomez Contraceptive Coverage under the Affordable
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1418 and 15-191 In the Supreme Court of the United States MOST REVEREND DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. GENEVA COLLEGE, PETITIONER
More informationOctober 8, Comments on Interim Final Rules on Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act
Office of the General Counsel 3211 FOURTH STREET NE WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 202-541-3300 FAX 202-541-3337 October 8, 2014 Submitted Electronically Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1453 and 14-1505 In the Supreme Court of the United States PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.,
More informationCase 4:12-cv SEB-DML Document 1 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 1
Case 4:12-cv-00134-SEB-DML Document 1 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION GROTE INDUSTRIES, LLC, an Indiana limited liability
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-35 In the Supreme Court of the United States EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationSubject: ANPRM: Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, CMS ANPRM, Docket ID: CMS
June 19, 2012 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-9968-ANPRM P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-185 Submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov
More informationCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. August 13, By first-class mail and [http://www.regulations.
COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION MATTHEW L. EILENBERG CHAIR 875 THIRD AVENUE 17 TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022-6225 Phone: (212) 251-5718 Fax: (212) 644-7432 matthew.eilenberg@towerswatson.com
More informationAugust 9, Dear Secretary Burwell, Acting Administrator Slavitt, Assistant Secretary Borzi, and Deputy Commissioner Dalrymple:
August 9, 2016 Submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Acting Administrator Andrew M. Slavitt Centers for Medicare
More informationACA Violations Penalties and Excise Taxes
Provided by Propel Insurance ACA Violations Penalties and Excise Taxes The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes numerous reforms for group health plans and creates new compliance obligations for employers
More informationEXPERT UPDATE. Compliance Headlines from Henderson Brothers:.
EXPERT UPDATE Compliance Headlines from Henderson Brothers:. Health Care Reform Timeline Health Care Reform Timeline This Henderson Brothers Summary provides a timeline of the of key reform provisions
More informationImportant Effective Dates for Employers and Health Plans
Brought to you by Hipskind Seyfarth Risk Solutions Important Effective Dates for Employers and Health Plans On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the health care reform bill, or Affordable Care Act
More informationAffordable Care Act (ACA) Violations Penalties and Excise Taxes
Brought to you by Clark & Associates of Nevada, Inc. www.clarkandassoc.com Affordable Care Act (ACA) Violations Penalties and Excise Taxes The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes numerous reforms for group
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs,
CASE 0:13-cv-03148-JNE-FLN Document 1 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DOBOSZENSKI & SONS, INC. and DOUGLAS DOBOSZENSKI, Civil File No. Plaintiffs, vs KATHLEEN
More informationJune 22, To Whom It May Concern,
June 22, 2018 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW, Room 10235 Washington, DC 20503 OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov
More informationAppellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH
Appellate Case: 13-1540 Document: 01019459253 Date Filed: 07/14/2015 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT LITTLE SISTERS
More informationAFFORDABLE CARE ACT. Group Health Plan- The definition appears in Section 2791(a) of the PHSA, which states as follows: PPACA defines a selfinsured
PPACA defines a selfinsured plan as a Group Health Plan- The definition appears in Section 2791(a) of the PHSA, which states as follows: AFFORDABLE CARE ACT The term group health plan means an employee
More informationEmployee Benefits Compliance Checklist for Large Employers
: Provided by [B_Officialname] Employee Benefits Compliance Checklist for Large Employers Federal law imposes numerous requirements on the group health coverage that employers provide to their employees.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States GRACE SCHOOLS & BIOLA UNIVERSITY, Petitioners, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationComments on Volcker Rule Proposed Regulations
Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson Secretary Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20551 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 250 E Street, SW.
More informationIncentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans
Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance Employee Benefits Security Administration Room N-5653 U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20210 Re: Dear Sir or
More informationAugust 26, Submitted Via Federal Rulemaking Portal:
August 26, 2010 Submitted Via Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G Hubert H. Humphrey
More information09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA
Page 1 of 12 09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA By Sara Rosenbaum Background Overview Enacted in 1974 with the overarching aim of protecting workers' pension plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security
More informationACA Provisions Summary. Self Funded Group Health Plans
ACA Provisions Summary Self Funded Group Health Plans January 2013 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Compliance with State Law... 1 Grandfathered Health Plans... 2 Prohibition Against Preexisting Condition
More informationRe: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act (CMS 9968 P) AHIP Comments
Gary Cohen Deputy Administrator and Director Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services US Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence
More informationContinuation Coverage Requirements Applicable to Group Health Plans. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
[4830-01-u] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 54 [REG-121865-98] RIN 1545-AW94 Continuation Coverage Requirements Applicable to Group Health Plans AGENCY: Internal Revenue
More informationH E A L T H C A R E R E F O R M T I M E L I N E
H E A L T H C A R E R E F O R M T I M E L I N E On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the health care reform bill, or Affordable Care Act (ACA), into law. The ACA makes sweeping changes to the U.S.
More information1/5/16. Provided by: The Lank Group Winterthur Close Kennesaw, GA Tel: Design 2015 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved.
1/5/16 Provided by: The Lank Group 2971 Winterthur Close Kennesaw, GA 30144 Tel: 770-683-6423 Design 2015 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Plan Design and Coverage
More information4/13/16. Provided by: KRA Agency Partners, Inc. 99 Cherry Hill Road, Suite 200 Parsippany, NJ Tel:
4/13/16 Provided by: KRA Agency Partners, Inc 99 Cherry Hill Road, Suite 200 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Tel: 973-588-1800 Design 2015 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Introduction...3 Plan
More informationMedicare Part D Retiree Drug Subsidy Payments
Caution: ACA is under constant review. Provisions could be adjusted, re- interpreted and even repealed in the future. This is a snapshot as of December 10, 2014. 2013 W- 2 Health Care Value Reporting January
More informationIntroduction Notice and Disclosure Requirements Plan Design and Coverage Issues: Prior to
8/22/13 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Notice and Disclosure Requirements... 4 Plan Design and Coverage Issues: Prior to 2014... 10 Plan Design and Coverage Issues: 2014 and Beyond... 12 Wellness
More informationSeptember 8, Dear Mr. Miller:
September 8, 2008 Mr. Steven T. Miller Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20224 Dear Mr. Miller: We, the undersigned clergy
More informationCase 1:17-cv NMG Document 17 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11930-NMG Document 17 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS : COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, : Case No. 17-cv-11930-NMG : Plaintiff, :
More informationHealth Care Reform: What Small Employers Can Expect
Health Care Reform: What Small Employers Can Expect THIS OUTLINE WAS PREPARED BASED SOLELY ON THE GUIDANCE ISSUED AND AVAILABLE AS OF October 16, 2012 This written material represents, in part, a compilation
More informationHealth Care Reform. What Do We Do Now? Webinar July 18, 2012
Health Care Reform What Do We Do Now? Webinar July 18, 2012 Today s Presenters Danny Miller, Attorney, Conner & Winters, LLP, Washington, DC SUPREME COURT DECISION Breakdown of Decision Court has jurisdiction
More informationLooking for a Life Vest?
Looking for a Life Vest? November 20 th, 2014 @thomasharte Agenda: Looking for a Life Vest? Health Care Reform: What s new with ACA?? Provisions Already in Effect Preparing for Health Care Reform Primary
More informationHealth Care Reform. Employer Action Overview
Health Care Reform Page 2 of 10 Health Care Reform Immediatemmediate Employer Action Required Notes Nursing Mothers Employers must provide a reasonable break time for employees who are nursing mothers
More informationJune 22, RE: Comments on Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act Draft Model Disclosure Request Form
June 22, 2018 Filed electronically via OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA Office of Management and Budget Room 10235 725 17 th
More informationGrandfathered Health Plans Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
Grandfathered Health Plans Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Bernadette Fernandez Specialist in Health Care Financing January 3, 2011 Congressional Research Service CRS Report
More informationHealth Care Reform Toolkit Large Employers
Health Care Reform Toolkit Large Employers Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Plan Design and Coverage Issues: 2014 and Beyond... 4 Employer Obligations... 11 Notice and Disclosure Requirements... 19
More informationProposed Rules Allow the Use of HRAs to Pay For Individual Market Coverage
Proposed Rules Allow the Use of HRAs to Pay For Individual Market Coverage PUBLISHED: October 29, 2018 AUTHORS: Katie Bjornstad Amin, Christine Keller, Rachel Leiser Levy, Stephen Pennartz, Seth Perretta,
More informationHealth Care Reform Highlights
Caring For Those Who Serve 1201 Davis Street Evanston, Illinois 60201-4118 800-851-2201 www.gbophb.org March 26, 2010 Health Care Reform Highlights This week, Congress and the President enacted comprehensive
More informationEmployee Benefits Compliance Update
Compliance FEBRUARY 2017 Employee Benefits Compliance Update USI Insurance Services Employee Benefits Compliance Practice In this issue Trump Administration issues ACA Executive Order Enforcement of ACA
More information4/13/16. Provided by: Zywave W. Innovation Drive, Suite 300 Milwaukee, WI
4/13/16 Provided by: Zywave 10100 W. Innovation Drive, Suite 300 Milwaukee, WI 53226 Email: marketing@zywave.com Design 2015 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Plan Design
More informationEmployee Benefits Compliance Checklist for Large Employers
Brought to you by Ardent Solutions Employee Benefits Compliance Checklist for Large Employers Federal law imposes numerous requirements on the group health coverage that employers provide to their employees.
More informationHealth Plans: What s Next? Transitioning to Health Care Reform: So You Think You d Like Your Plan To Be Grandfathered
Health Plans: What s Next? Drinker Biddle s Health Care Reform Update for Employee Benefit Plans Transitioning to Health Care Reform: So You Think You d Like Your Plan To Be Grandfathered The grandfathered
More informationOctober 1, 2010 NEW NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INSURED GROUP HEALTH PLANS
October 1, 2010 NEW NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INSURED GROUP HEALTH PLANS The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( PPACA ) extends the nondiscrimination requirements of section 105(h) of
More informationCase 1:14-cv RJL Document 1 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-01149-RJL Document 1 Filed 07/07/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) MARCH FOR LIFE ) 1317 8th St., NW ) Washington, DC 20001 ) ) JEANNE F. MONAHAN
More informationPerhaps the best feature of the Affordable
Tax CCH Briefing CCH CCH ACA Small Business Tax and Compliance August 12, 2015 HIGHLIGHTS Transition Relief for Reimbursement Plans Ends Possible Legislative Fix Stalls SHOP Plan Employers Can Have Up
More informationSeptember 6, Submitted electronically via to
September 6, 2011 Submitted electronically via e-mail to Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Internal Revenue Service CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2011-35) Room 5203 P.O. Box 7604 Ben Franklin Station Washington,
More informationERISA: Required Summary Plan Description
ERISA: Required Summary Plan Description Summary ERISA requires virtually every employee benefit plan to have a summary plan description (SPD) and to furnish copies to each individual entitled to receive
More informationHealth Plan Summary Plan Description
Health Plan Summary Plan Description as amended Effective April 1, 2015 March 31, 2016 This Summary Plan Description ("SPD") explains the main provisions of the Marshfield Clinic Health Systems, Inc. Health
More informationShared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
[4830-01-p] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1, 54 and 301 [REG-138006-12] RIN 1545-BL33 Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage AGENCY: Internal Revenue
More informationGrandfathered Health Plans Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
Grandfathered Health Plans Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) Bernadette Fernandez Analyst in Health Care Financing June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationS 0831 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
======== LC00 ======== 01 -- S 01 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO INSURANCE -- HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE -- THE MARKET STABILITY AND
More informationThe ACA: Health Plans Overview
The ACA: Health Plans Overview Agenda What is the legal status of the ACA? Which plans must comply? Reforms currently in place 2013 compliance deadlines 2014 compliance deadlines 2015 compliance deadlines
More informationHealth Care Reform Overview
Publication date: March 2014 Health Care Reform Overview for Large Group (51+) Plans The following chart provides a breakdown of key Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions by year for large group plans,
More informationThese FAQs state: HRA Prohibition May Have Broader Affects
May 20, 2013 Secretary Sebelius Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20201 Secretary Lew Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania
More informationKey Elements of Health Care Reform for Employers
Key Elements of Health Care Reform for Employers Change in tax treatment for over-age 2010 dependent coverage Early retiree medical reinsurance Accounting impact of change in Medicare retiree drug subsidy
More informationDecember 12, 2012 OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSITIONAL REINSURANCE PROGRAM
December 12, 2012 On November 30, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) released for public inspection proposed regulations ( New Proposed Regulations ) setting forth guidance with
More informationMarch 23, Internal Revenue Service CC:PA:LPD:RU (Notice ) Room 5203 PO Box 7604 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044
March 23, 2011 Internal Revenue Service CC:PA:LPD:RU (Notice 2011-02) Room 5203 PO Box 7604 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Re: Comments Regarding Notice 2011-02 Dear Sir or Madam: America s
More informationDepartment of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption s Requirements
A Timely Analysis of Legal Developments A S A P In This Issue: March 2010 In a development that may have significant implications for mortgage lenders and other financial services employers, the Department
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11930 Document 1 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS : COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, : Case No. : Plaintiff, : COMPLAINT FOR : FOR DECLARATORY
More informationSummary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary. AGENCIES: Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 54 and 602 TD 9575 RIN 1545-BJ94 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2590 RIN 1210-AB52 DEPARTMENT
More informationRE: RIN 1545-BN23 (Information Reporting of Catastrophic Health Coverage and Other Issues Under Section 6055)
The ERISA Industry Committee The Only National Association Advocating Solely for the Employee Benefit and Compensation Interests of America s Largest Employers 1400 L Street, NW, Suite 350, Washington,
More informationACA Update and Tackling the ACA s Reporting Requirements
ACA Update and Tackling the ACA s Reporting Requirements Benefit Advisors Network Stacy H. Barrow (617) 526-9648 sbarrow@proskauer.com February 4, 2015 2015 Proskauer. All Rights Reserved. Agenda Recent
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13A691 In the Supreme Court of the United States LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, a Colorado non-profit corporation, LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, BALTIMORE, INC., a Maryland
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-10238 Document: 00514003289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationPaying Premiums for Individual Health Insurance Policies Prohibited
Brought to you by BBG, Inc. Innovative Health Plan Solutions/Intelligent Cost Management Paying Premiums for Individual Health Insurance Policies Prohibited Due to the rising costs of health coverage,
More informationRE: Draft Letter to Issuers on Federally-facilitated and State Partnership Exchanges
V v Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight By Email: FFEcomments@cms.hhs.gov Main Office 7501 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 1100W Bethesda, MD 20814 301.347.0400
More informationWelfare Benefit Plan Reporting & Disclosure Calendar
Reporting and Disclosure Requirements Introduced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) TYPE OF DISCLOSURE Notice of Grandfathered Plan Status Must provide notice that plan is a grandfathered
More informationAffordable Care Act Overview
Affordable Care Act Overview Your guide to health care reform law 208 Edition The foregoing information is general in nature and is intended to keep you apprised of certain important developments. This
More informationNew NYSE and NASDAQ Listing Rules Raise the Accountability of Company Boards and Compensation Committees Through Flexible Standards
New NYSE and NASDAQ Listing Rules Raise the Accountability of Company Boards and Compensation Committees Through Flexible Standards By Todd B. Pfister and Aubrey Refuerzo* On January 11, 2013, the U.S.
More informationDELIVERED VIA AND U.S. MAIL March 9, Re: State of Illinois Medicaid Managed Care Organization Request for Proposals
THE ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. SUITE 2300 180 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO, IL 60601-1287 T: 312-201-9740 F: 312-201-9760 WWW.ACLU-IL.ORG DELIVERED VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL March 9, 2017 Lynette
More informationMEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation
MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
More informationProposed Regulation - Definition of the Term Fiduciary, 82 Fed Reg (March 2, 2017). 2
March 15, 2017 Mr. Joe Canary, Director Office of Regulations and Interpretations Employee Benefits Security Administration Attn: Fiduciary Rule Examination Room N-5655 U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution
More informationSUMMARY: This final rule establishes requirements for student health insurance coverage
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/21/2012 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-06359, and on FDsys.gov CMS-9981-F DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
More informationClarification of Final Rules for Grandfathered Plans, Preexisting Condition Exclusions,
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/03/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-09369, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 4120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF
More informationDepartment of Labor. Part V. Wednesday, May 26, Employee Benefits Security Administration
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Part V Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2590 Health Care Continuation Coverage; Final Rule VerDate jul2003 16:06 May 25, 2004 Jkt 203001
More informationEmployer Mandate: Employer Action Overview
HEALTH CARE REFORM Employer Mandate: Page 2 of 11 Immediatemmediate Employer Action Required Notes Nursing Mothers Employers must provide a reasonable break time for non-exempt employees who are nursing
More informationEBG Q&A Follow Up to ACA Section 1557: Will You Meet the October 16 Deadline? Webinar of October 6, 2016
EBG Q&A Follow Up to ACA Section 1557: Will You Meet the October 16 Deadline? Webinar of October 6, 2016 Presented by Frank C. Morris, Jr. and Nathaniel M. Glasser Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. This Question
More informationLegal Considerations for Patient Assistance Programs
Legal Considerations for Patient Assistance Programs March 6, 2014 Robert D. Clark Ober Kaler (202) 326-5039 Seth H. Lundy King & Spalding (202) 626-2924 S. Craig Holden Ober Kaler (410) 347-7322 Topics
More information